Acquiesce In Tyranny? Simply Unthinkable

May 18, 1986|By Jeane Kirkpatrick, Los Angeles Times Syndicate

There is a widespread belief in Washington that Nicaragua will sign the Contadora treaty on June 6 at a meeting of foreign ministers of five Central American countries and eight associated South American nations. This belief persists even though some Nicaraguan junta leaders indicate the contrary. There is also widespread fear that Nicaragua will sign the agreement, never fulfill its terms and nonetheless reap the benefits of compliance by its neighbors and the United States.

It is a reasonable fear based on the past behavior of the Sandinistas. After all, the Sandinistas in 1979 promised democratic elections, free press and assembly, and rule of civil law. These commitments were made when Sandinista leaders needed help in ousting Somoza and winning power. Once in power, they rejected talk of elections, claiming that Nicaraguans already had voted ''with their blood and with the guns in their hands.''

None of the promises made to the Organization of American States was kept. Instead, the Sandinista government gagged the press, denied the right of assembly, subjected businesses and trade unions to comprehensive controls and suspended the rule of law. When elections finally were held in 1984, the government controlled the choice of candidates, the campaign and the outcome. What reason is there, then, to believe that the same leaders who made solemn written promises of democracy six years ago will honor them now if they sign the proposed treaty?

The treaty would commit its signatories to democratic freedoms and elections, the removal of foreign military and security personnel, an end to importation of foreign arms, and non-interference in the internal affairs of one another. The 21 Contadora Objectives are wholly consistent with the goals of U.S. policy in the region.

But Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and the junta do not speak as though they are planning a democratic transition. ''We are not going to disarm the revolution,'' Ortega said last week. ''Not one rifle will leave Nicaragua in any negotiations.''

''We are not going to disarm the revolution,'' Ortega said last week. ''Not one rifle will leave Nicaragua in any negotiations.''

Junta member Sergio Ramirez Mercado said Nicaragua would be disposed to sign the Contadora treaty only if the United States pledged to respect its terms. Special U.S. envoy Philip Habib already has informally indicated the United States would do so. In a letter to three Democratic congressmen, Habib asserted that the United States would support a treaty that provided for ''comprehensive, verifiable, and simultaneous implementation,'' adding ''we would not feel politically bound to respect an agreement that Nicaragua was violating.''

Would the United States move to demobilize and disband the contras while Nicaragua stalls and dissembles? One of the treaty's provisions, the one Nicaragua is most concerned with, would outlaw ''irregular military forces'' and dismantle their bases.

The Sandinistas might even cut off their flow of weapons and guerrillas to neighboring countries. However, it would be easy enough to resume full-scale support a year or two later.

Such a swindle would not be the first one experienced by the United States. We already have made real concessions in exchange for promised goods that never materialized. At Yalta, Stalin promised free elections for Poland. North Vietnam promised a cease-fire and withdrawal of foreign troops from Laos and Cambodia. At Helsinki, the Soviets promised to respect human rights and permit emigration. After the Cuban missile crisis, Nikita Khrushchev promised President John F. Kennedy the Soviet Union would not install offensive weapons in Cuba and would not use that country to export revolution in the hemisphere. The communist record of treaty compliance reminds one of Thomas Hobbs' dictum that ''covenants without swords'' are not to be relied on.

Obviously, the United States should not acquiesce in an agreement that will not be fulfilled. To acquiesce in tyranny for Nicaragua, turmoil for Central America and enhanced risks for American national security is simply unthinkable.